The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/news/2005/03/18/lacrossesuspensionsreduced

March 18, 2005 > News > Leebron reduces lacrosse penalties

Leebron reduces lacrosse penalties

By Jenny Rees | Thresher Editorial Staff

President David Leebron reduced the men’s and women’s club lacrosse teams’ three-semester suspension to two semesters, he announced Monday.

The announcement followed his March 3 decision to reduce the team captains’ individual penalties. The seven captains were originally given three-semester suspensions, but Leebron lowered five of the captains’ penalties to one semester. The two remaining captains, who purchased the alcoholic beverages for the party, had their suspensions reduced to two semesters.

The men’s and women’s teams were suspended last month for violating the Alcohol Policy and allegedly hazing new members at an off-campus party Dec. 3. At the party, known as “initiation,” about 20 new members of the men’s and women’s teams were handcuffed in pairs using metal novelty handcuffs and were given a fifth of a gallon of hard liquor to drink. Two of the new members of the men’s team and two of the new members of the women’s team were hospitalized for alcohol-related illnesses the night of the party, according to the findings of Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs Don Ostdiek.

Ostdiek investigated the case and decided to dissolve the teams until at least Fall 2006. The teams submitted separate appeals to Leebron, who currently handles disciplinary appeals, Feb. 17.

The appeal

The appeal submitted by the men’s team states that no hazing occurred at the party, that the team did not receive a “fair trial” by Ostdiek, that the three-semester suspension is too harsh and that the punishment unfairly impacts members of the team who did not participate in the party.

The appeal states that the initiation was a completely voluntary activity and was not required for membership on the team.

The Code of Student Conduct defines hazing as “any act which endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or which destroys or removes public or private property, for the purpose of membership and/or association with a group, including a group of students pressuring another to engage in such conduct.”

The appeal states that members of the team did not feel pressure to attend the event, noting that of the 21 students who could have participated in the initiation, only 11 did so.

Lovett College junior Peter Darrell, a team member who prepared the appeal, said he acknowledges the team violated the Alcohol Policy. The Alcohol Policy states that student organizations holding events with alcohol on or off campus must take reasonable precautions that alcohol will not be consumed by students not of legal age or by any individual who is already intoxicated. Of the eleven students who participated in the lacrosse initiation, three were of legal drinking age.

“We violated the Alcohol Policy, and for that we deserve to be punished,” Darrell said. “Things went wrong, but it wasn’t out of the ordinary compared to other parties I’ve been to. People went to the hospital — that’s horrible, but people go to the hospital from parties.”

Martel College senior Andy Ludwig, another member of the team, said he thinks Rice’s judicial system is flawed because Ostdiek was the only person involved in investigating and adjudicating the case.

“We were basically denied our rights,” Ludwig said. “However, under the Code of Student Conduct, we really had no rights. I think a lot of students don’t understand the Code of Student Conduct allows the assistant dean to proceed with a case however he wants.”

Under the Code of Student Conduct, the assistant dean for Student Judicial Programs may choose to assume authority over any case, rather than submitting the case to University Court or the Judicial Affairs Committee.

The decision

Leebron upheld Ostdiek’s basic findings against the teams but reduced the teams’ suspension to two semesters rather than three. The teams may petition Ostdiek in the fall for reinstatement as a club, which would take effect in Spring 2006. Leebron also reversed Ostdiek’s decision not to allow current juniors and seniors to rejoin the teams when they reform.

In deciding the appeal, Leebron said he consulted with Assistant to the President Mark Scheid (Baker ‘67) and the General Counsel’s Office. He read all materials in the case file, including all the letters and e-mails sent by members of the team and other students. He did not interview any of the accused students.

In a letter detailing his decision on the appeal, Leebron stated that he agrees with Ostdiek’s finding that the team violated the Code of Student Conduct by endangering the initiates. Leebron stated that although the activity was not required for participation on the team, it is still considered hazing under the university definition.

“Creating an atmosphere for team building where there was illegal and excessive drinking encouraged by members of the Club, conduct that resulted in four students being taken to the hospital, falls squarely within the type of conduct that the hazing provision of the Code was meant to prohibit,” the letter states.

Leebron said whether or not the initiates’ actions were consensual, the team’s actions were unacceptable.

“This is how people end up dead,” Leebron said. “Let’s not misunderstand that. They end up dead in consensual activities. … I am not waiting until somebody dies to say this is a serious problem.”

The penalties do not represent a policy shift but rather a enforcement of existing policies, Leebron said.

“I don’t have a problem with the Alcohol Policy,” Leebron said. “But I do have problems with violations of the Alcohol Policy, and I especially have problems with anything that endangers the safety of our students. There is no more important responsibility than the protection of the lives and safety of our students.”

Darrell said he was disappointed by the outcome of the appeal.

“I think [Leebron] still came down way too hard,” Darrell said. “I think he doesn’t understand undergraduates. I have friends who are in [fraternities], and I’ve heard about the hazing that happens in those, and what we did just isn’t on the same level.”

The captains

The captains of the men’s team — Martel senior Rob Gillette, Will Rice College senior Chris Sramek and Hanszen College junior Sam Symonds — released a statement to the Thresher.

“We and the other members of the men’s lacrosse team exercised poor judgment regarding the party thrown on December third,” the statement reads. “We are glad that no one was seriously injured, and we now recognize the risk associated with the party.”

The captains of the women’s team — Brown College junior Laura Barnes and Sid Richardson College senior Amanda Cahn — declined to comment on the case.

The team’s appeal states that all members of the team are equally responsible for the events at the party.

“The decision was a team decision, not a decision by the captains, and was agreed upon by all the veterans of the team,” the appeal states. “Holding the party is a team tradition that all members of the team agreed to continue this past year.”

Ludwig said singling out the captains for punishment was unfair based on the structure of the team.

“What I think [Ostdiek and Leebron] didn’t take the time to understand, although we told them many times, is that the only capacity that differentiates the captains from any other member of the team is that they are allowed to sign checks to spend money from the Rice Lacrosse budget,” Ludwig said.

The protest

The teams held a rally March 4 to protest Leebron’s decision on the captains’ appeals. The rally, held at Willy’s statue in the academic quad, drew about 50 students, who carried lacrosse sticks and signs such as “Free Lax, Suspend Leebron.”

Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman attended the rally. Although he was not involved in the judicial process, Forman, a Jones College master, said he is disturbed by the events of the party, particularly the alleged hazing.

“The fact that lines are hard to draw doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be drawn,” Forman said. “This was an endangerment of the health and safety of others. I don’t see how anyone would expect that as a community we would treat this lightly.”

The teams will hold another rally in the academic quad at 4 p.m. today to protest the decision on the teams’ appeals.

End of article

Back to top